This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2010-10-20 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Yet in appropriate instances and in the interest of justice, cases pending in different branches of the court or in different courts may be consolidated, consistent with the rule in our jurisdiction that leans towards permitting consolidation of cases whenever possible and irrespective of the diversity of the issues for resolution.[47] Hence, consolidation of cases is proper when the actions involve the same reliefs or the same parties and basically the same issues,[48] or when there is real need to forestall the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered in the cases,[49] provided that the measure will not give one party an undue advantage over the other, or prejudice the substantial rights of any of the parties.[50] | |||||
|
2005-10-19 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In Intestate Estate of Alexander T. Ty v. Court of Appeals,[28] we held that:" The question raised in the complaints is whether or not there was indeed a sale in the absence of cause or consideration. The proper forum for such a dispute is a regular trial court. The Court agrees with the ruling of the Court of Appeals that no special corporate skill is necessary in resolving the issue of the validity of the transfer of shares from one stockholder to another of the same corporation. Both actions, although involving different property, sought to declare the nullity of the transfers of said property to the decedent on the ground that they were not supported by any cause or consideration, and thus, are considered void ab initio for being absolutely simulated or fictitious. The determination whether a contract is simulated or not is an issue that could be resolved by applying pertinent provisions of the Civil Code, particularly those relative to obligations and contracts. Disputes concerning the application of the Civil Code are properly cognizable by courts of general jurisdiction. No special skill is necessary that would require the technical expertise of the SEC. (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2004-08-13 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Finally, on the lands covered in Expediente 244, we note that as a "donacion de su abuelo," the donation impaired the hereditary rights of succession of Jose's co-heirs. Nevertheless, these were transferred to Jose by final judgment of the land registration court. Despite the registration in Jose's name, Jose did not take possession over them from the date of registration to the time of Jacobo's death. Instead, while alive, Jacobo retained possession, and continued the administration of the lands. Considering then these circumstances, Article 1449 of the New Civil Code on implied trusts is the pertinent law. It provides that, "[t]here is also an implied trust when a donation is made to a person but it appears that although the legal estate is transmitted to the donee, he nevertheless is either to have no beneficial interest or only a part thereof." Article 1449 creates a resulting trust where the donee becomes the trustee of the real beneficiary.[56] Generally, resulting trusts do not prescribe except when the trustee repudiates the trust.[57] Further, the action to reconvey does not prescribe so long as the property stands in the name of the trustee.[58] To allow prescription would be tantamount to allowing a trustee to acquire title against his principal and true owner.[59] Here, Jose did not repudiate the trust, and the titles of the disputed lands are still registered in Jose's name or in the name of the Heirs of Jose M. Ringor, Inc. | |||||
|
2004-03-11 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Basic as a hornbook principle is that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action. In Deltaventures Resources, Inc. vs. Cabato,[3] we held: "Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined upon the allegations made in the complaint, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled or not entitled to recover upon the claim asserted therein a matter resolved only after and as a result of the trial." The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.[4] | |||||
|
2002-04-12 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Equally unavailing is petitioner's contention that the case involves an intra-corporate controversy, or one between the corporation and its stockholder transposing it within the domain of the SEC. It should be noted that the issue has become moot and academic because with Republic Act No. 8799, Securities Regulation Code, it is now the Regional Trial Court and no longer the SEC that has jurisdiction. Under Section 5.2 of Republic Act No. 8799,[32] original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving intra-corporate controversies have been transferred to a court of general jurisdiction or the appropriate Regional Trial Court.[33] | |||||